Talk:Monkey D. Luffy/History
PH: Luffy vs Master "She makes a barrier over Caesar, which Luffy breaks with Jet Gatling. Monet lets Caesar escape, and tells Luffy that if anything bad happens to him" It was actually Armament Hardening Gomu Gomu no Jet Gatling. Oda fixed the darkened fists in the volume release http://www.imagebam.com/image/b7311a244932357 the WSJ version http://www.imagebam.com/image/b9a99f244932431 when Oda forgot Luffy´s black arms.Ssj7 (talk) 17:43, April 18, 2013 (UTC) Childhood but not Romance Down Luffy's past (at least part of it) was revealed, his first meeting with Ace, Garp handing him to Dadan, so shouldn't this be in a new subject, besides Romance Down?--GMTails 19:24, April 24, 2010 (UTC) :Can't we wait until the flashback is finished to resume this part of Luffy's life. Making resume chapter by chapter is a bad habit that we have in this wiki Kdom 21:04, April 24, 2010 (UTC) The fillers shoold be included in one piece history. Just with the indication of being fillers. Adventure on the Isle of Women Why the text doesn't say that Luffy used haki against the snake sisters?Giotis 18:48, August 31, 2010 (UTC) :Because he didn't, he only released his Haōshoku Haki unconsciously but he didn't apply it during his battle with them. MasterDeva 19:02, August 31, 2010 (UTC) ::Ok he did it unconsciously but he did it. The name Haōshoku Haki doesn't exist in the text that describe the battle.Giotis 19:11, August 31, 2010 (UTC) :::I added the missing info. MasterDeva 19:50, August 31, 2010 (UTC) Infobox here I want to ask if an infobox is allowed to exist here and if it doesn't I want the user who adds it to stop doing it. Luffy friends what happend to the image "luffy realise he still has his crew? i think we should return it. Strawhat1 11:27, September 25, 2011 (UTC) Tabs This page is currently the longest page on the wiki (and it will keep growing). We should either tab the pre/post skip sections, or put them in templates. We'd have to do this for all the SH History pages. 00:25, August 7, 2013 (UTC) That sounds like a good idea, and maybe we can also separate the inbox pictures. You know, pre-timeskip tab with pre-timeskip photo and post-timeskip tab with post-timeskip photo. Anti-Jester (talk) 08:24, August 7, 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I agree with creating subpages for pre-timeskip and post-timeskip. I actually made this suggestion on the Rokushiki talk page about 3 weeks ago: :"I think separating the histories into different pages would make editing much easier. We can use their pre-series past as their primary history page and make the events within ONE PIECE the pre and post timeskip sub-pages." 海賊☠姫 (talk) 08:35, August 7, 2013 (UTC) Make them templates. One template per saga. 13:52, August 7, 2013 (UTC) How would the tabbing work though? Would they be a subpage of a subpage? Or would there be two history tabs? Templates seems like a bad idea because it would make it more difficult to edit. Let's not jump to a decision right away until we can see more of what options look like. Perhaps someone can sandbox them? 14:08, August 7, 2013 (UTC) :Templatin' them is probably the best idea for editin' and yes subpages(of this subpage) for pre-timeskip and post-timeskip is a good solution too. :/ .. -- Subpages of a subpage sounds wrong. Templates are a way better idea. 14:25, August 7, 2013 (UTC) No, templates would be horrible here - these history pages are updated every chapter and episode and it would impede editing too much. Also, templates don't improve the load time of a page, whereas tabs do (as long as they're separate page tabs, not tabber tabs). 14:29, August 7, 2013 (UTC) We mustn't tab a tabbed page. Templates are the best option right now. 08:10, August 9, 2013 (UTC) No need for templates. Let's just tab the pages. 08:21, August 9, 2013 (UTC) Templates would not help at all in this situation: *If you're just viewing the page, there's no difference between having templates and not having them - the page still has to load the same amount of data (if anything, pulling it from somewhere else would take longer). *If you're editing the page, then there are roughly a hundred headings and sub-headings, each of which can be individually edited to bring up a manageable section of source code, and load quickly when previewed. *If there are templates, then this just means anyone trying to edit the page will find that they can't, and they have to go somewhere else instead, so the editing process just takes longer. *Additionally, template edits don't show up on the main feed, making it more difficult to deal with vandalism and otherwise keep track of edits on these pages, which are amongst the most edited on the wiki. *There's also a lag between when a template is edited and when the changes show up on the page on which its transcluded. 08:52, August 9, 2013 (UTC) I agree with Zo. I also agree with Zo. 11:19, August 9, 2013 (UTC) It seems we have a majority: 7:2 11:25, August 9, 2013 (UTC) So can somebody propose the tabbing idea? 00:55, August 14, 2013 (UTC) Bump. 14:01, August 25, 2013 (UTC) Either this: | |1}} | altbackcolor = # | |0}} | textcolor = # | |0}} | alttextcolor = # | |1}} | font-size = 90% | minwidth = 2 | maxwidth = 15 | height = 2.3 | tab1 = Introduction | tab2 = Gallery | tab3 = Personality and Relationships | tab4 = Abilities and Powers | tab5 = History|title5=History I | tab6 = History|title6=History II | tab7 = Misc. }} Or just this? | |1}} | altbackcolor = # | |0}} | textcolor = # | |0}} | alttextcolor = # | |1}} | font-size = 90% | minwidth = 2 | maxwidth = 15 | height = 2.3 | tab1 = Introduction | tab2 = Gallery | tab3 = Personality and Relationships | tab4 = Abilities and Powers | tab5 = History|title5=History I | tab6 = History|title6=II | tab7 = Misc. }} Then link tabs five and six to and , or something along those lines. 14:23, August 25, 2013 (UTC) Maybe just have it say "History", and then there's a separate tabbing mechanism on the History page that links to Pre or Post Skip. We'd have to have the character's past on the main history page. 14:25, August 25, 2013 (UTC) i like the first one better-- 16:14, August 25, 2013 (UTC) Agree with gal. 13:18, August 27, 2013 (UTC) I agree with Gal too. 13:19, August 27, 2013 (UTC) Further agreement with Galaxy. 16:14, August 27, 2013 (UTC) Look at my previous comment above^, I had the same idea. :海賊☠姫 (talk) 20:50, August 27, 2013 (UTC) ::What I meant was that I agree with Gal, who has the same idea as you. It's basically the same thing. 09:12, August 28, 2013 (UTC) Agreement with Galaxy. But if we just had to pick between the given examples, I like the first one more. 15:41, August 28, 2013 (UTC) I also agree with Gal. And Kaizoku-Hime. 15:46, August 28, 2013 (UTC) Bump. 15:36, September 2, 2013 (UTC) Most of us agreed. 09:44, September 4, 2013 (UTC) Gonna tab them since everyone agreed. 09:58, September 4, 2013 (UTC) Having just the past on its own (like everyone else above wants) causes problems - the Shanks quote clears both margins, resulting in a heap of whitespace given that the contents section no longer pushes it below the infobox, so we would have to remove it (it doesn't really fit anywhere else). The past section is also pretty short. 12:01, September 4, 2013 (UTC) We don't need a page about his past. It's fine as it is. 12:03, September 4, 2013 (UTC) Then why did you say you agreed with him above when he suggested it? 12:08, September 4, 2013 (UTC) :The current tabbing sucks,combine 'em into the first set of tabs-- Hmm, I didn't see the last sentence of his post. I think that we should have the pre timeskip history on the main page and have a separate one for his post timeskip history. 14:29, September 4, 2013 (UTC) Move the Shanks quote to the end of the section about Shanks. Makes more sense there anyways, because you have no idea wtf he's talking about at the top of the article. Then, the past works better as it's own page. 20:08, September 4, 2013 (UTC) No, it will ruin the page. 06:45, September 6, 2013 (UTC) :Did I not ask in chat to say more about how it "ruins" the page? I don't even know how to respond to you, since I have zero understanding of your opinion. And because I can't respond to you, you bring this discusion to a grinding halt and no progress can be made. It's really problematic for the wiki if you can't describe your opinions with sufficient detail. 12:40, September 6, 2013 (UTC) His past isn't long enough to have its own page. 12:44, September 6, 2013 (UTC) It's longer or just as long as than all of Brook's subpages, except his history. It's got two arcs of info. That's good enough for me. And how would the tabs even work if they aren't something separate from the normal history section? We need a page called "Monkey D. Luffy/History" that the main tabs direct to. But if the actual tabs are "Luffy/Pre Timeskip" and "Luffy/Post Timeskip" those are different names. And the situation we have now with 2 identical pages (Luffy/History and Luffy/Pre Timeskip) is not ideal. Also, we should use different colored tabs for the history article, otherwise they just look like another row on the main tabs, which gets confusing with the regular history section there. 13:02, September 6, 2013 (UTC) It's still not even close to as long as his pre or post timeskip history so it will look bad. We will keep his main history page for the past and the pre timeskip history and we'll use this one for his post timeskip history. Also if you want to change the colors, go ahead. 13:07, September 6, 2013 (UTC) Ignoring Staw's silly argument about the length (which doesn't matter), I do think we should combine Pre and Past, simply due to the formatting of the page, as you can see here. 19:51, September 8, 2013 (UTC) Past is part of the pre-timeskip history anyway. SeaTerror (talk) 20:13, September 8, 2013 (UTC) The Shanks stuff was, but the Ace/Sabo/Luffy stuff technically was told later, and was a flashback. 20:15, September 8, 2013 (UTC) Timeskip came after that. SeaTerror (talk) 20:22, September 8, 2013 (UTC) "Pre Timeskip" refers to events that happen before a timeskip. The stuff with Shanks was before the story began, and a timeskip of 10 years happened before Luffy set sail. That WAS the argument for giving it its own page, but the argument is now moot, since the formatting of the page goes to crap if we do that, so it's best to combine them, unless we can figure out a way to fix the issue. 20:34, September 8, 2013 (UTC) Alright, now I'm confused. Monkey D. Luffy/History directs you to the "pre-series" tab, but that tab still contains all of Luffy's history. What are we doing?! 03:48, September 12, 2013 (UTC) It's the Pre Series and Pre Timeskip tab, which contains all the flashback content and pre timeskip content. Don't think it's an issue if History goes there, and if the other tab is Post Skip. This seems to be the way to do it, so we should implement this say thing on the other Straw Hat pages. 19:42, September 18, 2013 (UTC) You only need a pre-timeskip and post timeskip tab. SeaTerror (talk) 19:44, September 18, 2013 (UTC) Ok, sounds fine to me to use on the other pages. But can we get some different colors or a different layout for the tabs? When you go to the History page, it's hard to notice that the new tabs appeared, since they blend in with the other tabs. 04:48, September 26, 2013 (UTC) Pre-series needs to be changed regardless. That implies it happened in a different series. We only need two tabs separated in Pre-Timeskip and Post-Timeskip histories too. SeaTerror (talk) 18:50, September 27, 2013 (UTC) What happened to the post time skip arks? With hody and ceaser clown? they are not there. Confused. Lightbuster ( 23:33, October 4, 2013 (UTC)) >_> they were tabbed-- 23:42, October 4, 2013 (UTC) You can find it by clicking the last tab titled "Post Timeskip". 02:39, October 5, 2013 (UTC) Right, the discussion about this is over. We've moved them already. Now, somebody just needs to change the colors (probably a good idea), and we'll be set. 15:17, October 7, 2013 (UTC) Any idea what colors would be good, or should we just use black and white? 22:48, October 9, 2013 (UTC) 321360 and C2D1DE? 10:24, October 10, 2013 (UTC) :Can you link an example? 13:33, October 10, 2013 (UTC) Discussion isn't over. "Pre-series needs to be changed regardless. That implies it happened in a different series." SeaTerror (talk) 20:00, October 10, 2013 (UTC) No, Pre Series means it happened before the series began. 20:55, October 10, 2013 (UTC) Exactly what I said. SeaTerror (talk) 20:57, October 10, 2013 (UTC) Nope. Stuff like flashbacks is before the beginning of the series, therefore it's before the series began. 20:58, October 10, 2013 (UTC) It happened during the series. Pre-series means it happened in a different series. SeaTerror (talk) 21:44, October 10, 2013 (UTC) Nope, that's not the definition that's being used here. 00:19, October 12, 2013 (UTC) That's because you made up your own definition. SeaTerror (talk) 02:16, October 12, 2013 (UTC) No no, you're the one misunderstanding what it really means. Anyways, anybody other than ST have objections to that naming? 02:24, October 12, 2013 (UTC) There is no misunderstanding; just a made up definition. If you have to have it that way then it should say Past instead. SeaTerror (talk) 02:34, October 12, 2013 (UTC) Past is stuff that happened before the beginning of the series, aka pre-series, aka anything in a flashback or before the adventure began. 02:43, October 12, 2013 (UTC) Pre-series is ok, but "Past" is better. That's what we use in section headings and it's more consistent. 15:08, October 12, 2013 (UTC) Past doesn't mean anything like Pre-series at all. Past means it still happened in the series past. Pre-series means it happened elsewhere in a different series. SeaTerror (talk) 18:28, October 12, 2013 (UTC) Bump. Past is more clear and consistent with how we word section headings. 02:48, October 14, 2013 (UTC) Using Past is fine and it sounds better. Pre-series sounds awkward and Past technically means the exact same thing. 17:31, October 15, 2013 (UTC) Yet they don't mean the same thing at all. SeaTerror (talk) 18:46, October 15, 2013 (UTC) In this context they do. 20:07, October 15, 2013 (UTC) That would only be because it was a made up definition. SeaTerror (talk) 22:20, October 15, 2013 (UTC) :Jeez, ST, we're agreeing with you that we should use past, and you're still arguing with us... At any rate, can we change it yet? 22:29, October 15, 2013 (UTC) Change it. ST, pre-series is the same as past. 22:30, October 15, 2013 (UTC) So is the discussion over? 06:41, October 16, 2013 (UTC) I changed Pre-Series to past on all the SH templates. The discussion isn't quite over yet since we still need to decide on a color for the history tabs that's not the SHP colors. 14:29, October 16, 2013 (UTC) Bump 20:52, October 18, 2013 (UTC) Just change the color that is highlighted. Black is probably the best to distinguish it. 21:52, October 18, 2013 (UTC) This discussion needs to be over... What color do we use? 02:10, October 22, 2013 (UTC) Do what you said earlier. Let's see what it looks like. 04:11, October 22, 2013 (UTC) Do a test and see what it looks like. 13:08, October 22, 2013 (UTC) Black has been edited in. 14:35, October 22, 2013 (UTC) Looks fine to me. If someone edits it in to the other SH pages, we can finally close this, I think. 14:45, October 22, 2013 (UTC) Looks good, we can finally finish this! 14:49, October 22, 2013 (UTC) Let's wait for more opinions first. 14:52, October 22, 2013 (UTC) Oh my god this color looks SO BAD 15:01, October 22, 2013 (UTC) White colored links are better with the black BG IMO.-- Well the red link doesn't look the best, maybe like Roranoa said do white links. 15:07, October 22, 2013 (UTC) Any other ideas on colour? 17:32, October 26, 2013 (UTC) Yeah, let's do white. 01:56, November 3, 2013 (UTC) Bumping, with the proposition that we use the actual "whole" saga names, instead of the weirdly organized way we're doing it now. Sea of Survival: Super Rookies Saga and The Final Sea: The New World Saga. 03:31, November 8, 2013 (UTC) Is anybody against this? 06:28, November 12, 2013 (UTC) I agree with this but we have to do it on all SH history sections. It has been done on all the Straw Hat pages. Are there any complaints, or can we finally put this discussion to rest? 15:16, December 2, 2013 (UTC) Post and Pre is better because they are shorter. However if it has to stay this way then the colors absolutely need to be changed. The tabs should not be a different color than the other tabs. SeaTerror (talk) 11:46, December 3, 2013 (UTC) More people wanted the color differentiation, so that's why it was changed. Why shouldn't it be different? 15:22, December 3, 2013 (UTC) Agree with what gal said,but lets change those colors,they look real ugly imo.-- Ironic that you who is so asinine about consistency wanted it to be a different color. SeaTerror (talk) 01:40, December 4, 2013 (UTC) Consistency has nothing to do with differentiation. 01:56, December 4, 2013 (UTC)